Even when the lege is on vacation, their efforts against the public interest continue

Corporate profits must be protected at all costs...especially when those costs are borne by others.

From Arizona Capitol Times, written by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services, dated 5/14/2025 -

State Republicans want to block Biden national monument

Key Points:

• Arizona Republicans are pushing to void a newly designated national monument

• Opponents of the monument argue the designation harms Arizona’s economy

• The monument sits on large uranium and water reserves

Rebuffed by a federal judge, Republican state legislative leaders want an appellate court to give them a chance to void the decision by former President Biden to designate nearly a million acres in northern Arizona as a national monument.

In new filings on May 14, attorney Justin Smith is arguing that U.S. District Court Judge Stephen McNamee got it wrong in January when he concluded that House Speaker Steve Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen have no legal standing to challenge creation of the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument.

Guessing that AZ taxpayers are picking up the tab for Montenegro's and Petersen's litigation and the continuation of it.

Waahhh!

Pro tip: If you're a politico who doesn't like being thought of as dirty, don't conduct witch hunts looking for whistleblowers.  It's not a good look.

From Phoenix New Times, written by T.J. L'Heureux, dated 4/17/2025 -

Scottsdale mayor sues to find out who snitched on her about Parkingate

Embattled Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowsky really wants to know who ratted her out.

Despite being in office for only a few months, Borowsky has already become the center of a controversy over a planned parking garage in Scottsdale. Dubbed “Parkingate,” the brouhaha stems from Borowsky's alleged efforts to yank a garage project away from one developer and hand it to David Hovey Jr., a campaign donor.

[snip]

On Monday, Borowsky filed a public records lawsuit against the county attorney’s office, complaining that the agency had not fulfilled a records request to uncover the identity of her accuser. She is being represented by right-wing lawyer Dennis Wilenchik, who is also her former employer.

[snip]

Days later, the county attorney’s office received an anonymous complaint detailing “concerns” about Borowsky’s attempt to change plans and give her donor a contract. Borowsky has denied doing anything wrong, a position that jives with the conclusion the county attorney’s office reached on March 14.

The case number is CV2025-013199 and the judge is the case is slated to be Adam Driggs, a former state legislator.

Insert your own punch line.

Time to rein in the AZ legislature and AZ law enforcement

Time for a rerun, but with additions.

Originally published on June 24, 2021 as "Time to rein in the AZ legislature."

"

Time to rein in the AZ legislature

It seem to be time for a Constitutional Convention. 

No, I don't mean a federal one that the conservatives love and are always talking about.

Nope, it's time for a state one, and the people of AZ can call one (I think).

Every constitution, federal or state or whatever, is predicated on the assumption that the people elected under it are honorable people and that those who aren't will be brought to heel by the others.  As we have seen, that's not the reality of the matter.

Article 21, Section 2 of the state constitution allows the legislature to call one, and Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority in the decision for Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission observed that the people can act as the legislature (in the interests of "Truth in Advertising", the case really should have been named "Arizona's Legislative Republicans v The People of Arizona", but that's just my opinion :) ).

IMO, if the question is phrased carefully and limits a convention to the legislature, it can be effective (the Rs will be sure to hijack any call for such to further their anti-ethnic minority, anti-woman, anti-LBGTQ+, and anti-society, agenda).

In light of the fraudit and some of the stinky nuggets that come out of the ideological catbox that is the Capitol, I have a few suggestions for ways to change the way members of the lege are treated under the AZ Constitution. 

Note: I'm not a lawyer, so if some inarticulate language has been used, I apologize.

Also, this list of suggestions is not meant to be a complete list.

1. Legislative corruption will be treated with the harshest penalty allowed under AZ law.  Currently, AZ has capital punishment; if something is good enough for the public, it's good enough for people who use their positions to betray the public trust.  If elected legislators want to accept money or something of real value in exchange for their vote on something, they should also be willing to be strapped to a gurney.

I'm not a fan of capital punishment, but I'm also not a fan of hypocrisy and corruption.

Oh, and we should put in language specifying the minimum penalty for legislative corruption, say, life in prison with eligibility for parole after 25 years (with "harshest penalty" language in the state constitution, the first thing the lege will do is to reduce the harshest penalty under AZ law).

2. There would be a limit on the number of measures (10?) that an individual legislator can sponsor or cosponsor.

3. There would be a limit on the number of measures (5?) that the legislature can refer to the ballot during a given 2 year cycle, and *everything* regarding elections or affecting state revenue would have to be referred to the ballot.  Certain members of the lege *love* tax credits and tax deductions for corporations and the wealthy; if the people of Arizona agree with one, it can be enacted.  

Any law passed by the lege, but subject to voter approval, would be held in abeyance until the vote.

4, The lege exists for one reason - to enact a state budget.  The budget would be heard for at least 24 committee hours in each chamber (you know, committees, where they take public testimony.)  If there's no public testimony, the members can sit there twiddling their thumbs.  If no quorum is present, the time doesn't count toward the 24-hour requirement.  Also, the budget must be passed in regular session.

No special sessions for the budget.

Lastly, the budget must be passed and signed by 5 p.m. on March 31, otherwise no other measures can be considered in committee or on the floor. If one isn't passed and signed by the end of business on April 15, the Arizona Department of Corrections would be directed to construct a temporary prison for 91 (think: Arpaio's Tent City, but without the creature comforts).  If one isn't passed and signed by the end of business on May 1, the members of the lege would be directed to enter it, staying there from Monday at 8 a.m. thru Thursday at 5 p.m.  If one isn't passed and signed by the end of business on May 15, the governor would join them.

Any member failing to appear or leaving during the assigned hours would be considered to have voluntarily resigned their position and would be considered to be ineligible to be appointed to fill a vacancy in the lege.

5. For a vote to be considered legally valid (committee or floor), it must happen between the hours of 9 a.m. and 7 p.m.  Laws with votes outside of those hours shall be overturned by a court of law when such a law is challenged.  No more all nighters at the Capitol.

6. Once a decade, the voters would decide what legislative margin would be needed to alter state revenue (currently reductions take a majority vote but increases take a 2/3 vote).  The same arguments for/against the lege doing one also work for the other.  That vote would *not* be counted toward the legislative total.

7. Legislative pay would be raised to $50K/year (I'm a firm believer in "you get what you pay for", and we pay our legislators garbage).  It would be raised decennially, by an amount tied to inflation.  Once per decade, that raise could be blocked by the voters.  Such a vote would *not* count against the lege's total.

8. That's the carrot; the stick would be if the lege challenged a voter-approved measure in court and the voters were upheld even in part, or a measure passed by the lege was challenged in court and was overturned, even in part, the members of the lege who voted for the challenge/law would be personally financially liable for a portion of the entire legal bill.

9. Oaths of office would include the words of the Miranda Warning and the oath to tell the truth administered in all AZ courts.  Don't take the oath?  Don't take the office.  And once in the office, don't lie to the folks you work for (the people of Arizona).

Nothing in this list would overturn something specifically approved by the voters; #6 comes closest, but since that would also require a vote of the people of AZ, it would be OK

Just some of my opinions. :) "

Additions:

1. The one that most directly affects the justice system (and not the legislature) -

If someone receives a harsher punishment for doing something when someone else receives a lighter punishment for the same act due to their financial situation, connectedness, race, gender, and/or sexual preference, the harsher punishment would be reduced to the lighter punishment. If a punishment greater than the lesser punishment was already served, the remainder would be vacated.

Also, if someone died in custody or during enforcement of a law when someone else accused of violating the same law isn't killed, that fact would considered to presumptive evidence of murder committed by each law enforcement official (LEO) involved in the case.  That LEO designation includes all judges, prosecutors, POs, COs, sheriff's deputies, county sheriffs, etc.

I call this the "Charles Ryan Clause."  The well-connected former director of the Department of Corrections received a term of probation for doing something (armed standoff with the police) that would get any member of civil society a term of incarceration.

2. Sitting legislators are immune from arrest or civil process during the legislative session with certain exceptions.  One of those exceptions is felonies.  

From Article 4, Part 2, Section 4 of the Arizona Constitution -

6. Privilege from arrest; civil process

Section 6. Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, and they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.

That would be retained.

However, *all* infractions by any member of the legislature, even ones that would be civil or misdemeanor violations if committed by a member of civil society, would be class 6 felonies at a minimum.  An arrest would be mandatory.  Violations that would be higher level felonies when committed by a normal person would still be that higher level felony.

Failure to arrest a sitting legislator for such an infraction would mean that any law enforcement official involved would be subjected to the maximum punishment for that level of felony.

Caveat: Making up such a infraction would mean that any LEO involved would be guilty of class 2 felony.  In addition to any punishment meted out for that, that person would also be permanently ineligible for any sort of public employment or elected office.

Caveat2: Failure of any sitting legislator to ID themselves as such during such an encounter with a LEO would in itself be a class 6 felony.

3. One week after the budget is enacted, other than base legislative pay, all compensation for legislators would end (per diem, mileage reimbursement, etc.) unless the legislature was called into special session by the governor, and even those would limited to being one week in length and to two special sessions per year.

GOPer legislators lied? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!

That was sarcasm, for folks who aren't regular readers - I'm not really shocked.

From KJZZ, written by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services -

9th U.S. Circuit: GOP lawmakers acted with discriminatory intent when adopting new AZ voting laws

A federal appeals court concluded there is evidence Arizona legislators acted with discriminatory intent when they approved some 2022 laws requiring proof of citizenship to vote.

In a 79-page ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said federal law decides who can vote in federal elections. And that, wrote Judge Ronald Gould for the majority, supersedes legislation approved by Republican lawmakers to deny a ballot to those without such proof.

In many ways, Tuesday's ruling is not a surprise. It affirms what U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton concluded two years ago.

"Acted with discriminatory intent" is judge-speak for "you're full of shit", but because of their wish to adhere to their profession's decorum, they couldn't say that directly.  I'm not a professional, so I can -

The GOPS in the AZ legislature were (and usually are) full of shit.

As judges are also trained attorneys, it took them 79 pages to be tactful.

I recommend reading the entire article - there are good parts of the article; too many to cite here.

Elected official - "Wahhh! Society's laws don't apply to me!"

Of course, the Arizona Court of Appeals doesn't agree.

Of course2, said official probably isn't worried, because when he was governor, Doug Ducey stacked the AZ Supreme Court with people who are as despicable as the elected official.

From AP, dated 12/31 -

Arizona official who delayed county’s 2022 election certification didn’t have immunity, court says

An appeals court has rejected an Arizona official’s argument that felony charges against him for delaying certification of his rural county’s 2022 election results should be dismissed because he has legislative immunity.

In an order Tuesday, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded Cochise County Supervisor Tom Crosby’s duty to certify the election results wasn’t discretionary. The court also said certifying election results is an administrative responsibility and that legislative immunity doesn’t apply to Crosby’s situation.

The decision is here.

Wait, didn't they get Capone for tax evasion?

Pointed at this by Taegan Goddard's Political Wire.

Like Cheeto, he did a lot of bad things, most them far worse than tax evasion, but the pragmatic part of me says "hey, whatever works."

From The Messenger -

Trump’s Tax Representative Said in 2020 He ‘Agrees’ With $26.6 Million Appraisal of Mar-a-Lago (Exclusive)

Former President Donald Trump has sought to discredit a New York judge’s blockbuster ruling threatening his business empire by arguing that Mar-a-Lago alone is worth more than a billion dollars.

But less than three years ago, his tax representative told Palm Beach County officials that Trump “agrees” his private club in South Florida is worth just $26.6 million, according to records obtained by The Messenger.

“The petitioner agrees with the determination of the property appraiser or tax collector,” Michael Corbiciero, the CEO of the tax consulting firm Marvin F. Poer & Co., attested in a letter dated Nov. 16, 2020.

Maybe the next time that Cheeto, he should enter to a song.  Of course, that song should be Fortunate Son, written by John Fogerty, and performed by Creedence Clearwater Revival.

From Austin Community College -

[snip]

But when the tax man comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale.

A court ruling may remove the core of Cheeto's self identity

Before he committed treason...before he bankrupted a casino...even before he was a media "personality"...he was a a real estate developer in New York City.

For most folks in that line of work, their favorite building materials seem to be concrete, wood, and drywall; based on the judge's ruling, it seems that Cheeto's were smoke, mirrors, and bullshit.

From The Hill -

Trump could lose control of famed properties under New York fraud ruling

A major loss Tuesday in former President Trump’s New York civil fraud case raises the potential for him to lose control of some of his famed properties and ability to do business in the state.

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that state Attorney General Letitia James (D) proved core elements of her far-reaching case, narrowing the scope of the trial that is set to begin as soon as Monday.

The decision finds Trump, two of his adult children — Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. — and their businesses liable for fraud after James’s office sued them last September. They have denied any wrongdoing and vowed to appeal.

"Smoke, mirrors, and bullshit."

Those are the basic building materials in his political career, too.

Alan Dershowitz, one of Kari Lake's lawyers, invokes the idiot defense

It's BS.

He may be an alleged predator, but he's not a *stupid* one.

From AZMirror, written by Caitlin Sievers -

Attorneys: Alan Dershowitz should have known better

Alan Dershowitz, the famed civil liberties attorney, is asking not to be sanctioned alongside other attorneys for Kari Lake and Mark Finchem after he signed onto a lawsuit that the judge called a “frivolous complaint.”

Dershowitz claimed during a telephone hearing on Wednesday that he only participated in the case, which aimed to stop Arizona from using any type of electronic voting machines to tally ballots, in a limited capacity and should therefore not be held responsible for the false claims in the suit. 

.

.

.

But two Arizona attorneys told the Arizona Mirror that because Dershowitz was listed as counsel in the case and signed his name to many of the filings, he was legally just as responsible for its content as the other lawyers who represented Lake and Finchem. 

.

.

.

Dershowitz made it a point to tell the judge that he doesn’t know either Lake or Finchem personally. 

“I do not like Ms. Lake,” Dershowitz said. “I would never have voted for her.” 

While Dershowitz told the judge on Wednesday that he only consulted on the case as a constitutional law expert and was not involved in any other way, he agreed to be admitted to be an attorney in the case “pro hac vice,” which allows an attorney who isn’t licensed in a state to work on a specific case in that state. 

“Everyone knows those rules, that when you appear in a case, you accept responsibility for the case,” Stirling said. “If he consented to appear in the case, he knows the responsibility he was taking on.”

 

Dershowitz has tried to get out of paying his penalty before this plea.  Guess being one of Cheeto's lackeys isn't so lucrative.

Does Kari Lake drive a car or a whaaaaambulance?

She loses in elections and in court...and then whines about both.

From Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services, published by the Arizona Capitol Times -

Lake says she will appeal judge’s ruling confirming she lost election

Kari Lake said Tuesday she will appeal Monday’s ruling confirming the election of Katie Hobbs as governor, brushing aside the fact that the judge said her key evidence in seeking to overturn the result was legally irrelevant.

In a press conference outside her Phoenix headquarters, Lake said she has been denied the ability to put on a case showing she actually won the race. She said that is because of the rulings about state elections laws from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson all the way up through the Arizona Supreme Court about what she needed to prove.

All of them went against her.

GQP to courts: "Your orders are irrelevant to our desire to hurt people"

From NBC -

Montana defies order on transgender birth certificates

Just hours after a Montana judge blocked health officials from enforcing a state rule that would prevent transgender people from changing the gender on their birth certificate, the Republican-run state on Thursday said it would defy the order.

District Court Judge Michael Moses chided attorneys for the state during a hearing in Billings for circumventing his April order that temporarily blocked a 2021 Montana law that made it harder to change birth certificates.

Moses said there was no question that state officials violated his earlier order by creating the new rule. Moses said his order reinstates a 2017 Department of Public Health and Human Services rule that allowed people to update the gender on their birth certificate by filing an affidavit with the department.

However, the state said it would disregard the ruling.

Is contempt of court a felony?  If not, it should be, at least for elected officials and public employees.

If an election doesn't go how you like, just sue

And for once, I'm not talking about Cheeto and his minions and their efforts to overturn the election results of 2020.

From Community Impact (Gilbert edition) -

Gilbert resident takes lawsuit disputing bond election results to Arizona Supreme Court

Having struck out in Maricopa County Superior Court and with the Arizona Court of Appeals, a Gilbert resident will make a final attempt to get the results of Gilbert’s street bond election thrown out.

The attorney for sign maker Jim Torgeson has appealed the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court, though no hearing date has been set.

The case number in Maricopa County Superior Court is CV2021-017974.